Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Seek Biomarkers For Violence
An anonymous reader writes "A Newtown couple, both scientists, who lost their daughter in the school shooting, are wondering whether there were clues in the shooter's physiological makeup — his DNA, his blood, his brain chemistry. They are now involved in a search for biomarkers, similar to those that may indicate disease, for violence. They are raising money to help fund this research, but the effort is running into obstacles, in part, over ethical concerns. 'I'm not opposed to research on violence and biomarkers, but I'm concerned about making too big of a leap between biomarkers and violence,' said Troy Duster, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley. There is concern that science may find biomarkers long before society can deal with its implications."
"This guy has a biomarker for violence... Shoot him! Get him before he attacks!"
I'm reminded of the parody video from The Onion (I think) where you had a jock who was killing the misfits at his high school so that they wouldn't snap and create another columbine.
Makes sense in most cases.
More on-topic: Just today I was reading about a guy with Down Syndrome managing to pass exams in my country which would be the equivalent of post-high school exams. He even passed with pretty good grades, while lots of "healthy" individuals failed soundly.
How does that link to this article? Well, even if people with Down Syndrome usually can't achieve that, some do. I think the same would apply to biomarkers: they might raise awareness but definitely wouldn't bring certainty that violence WILL occur. It's pretty dangerous to make assumptions based on the fact that you "might" become violent.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
...even if their markers are accurate. What do you do with a person that carries known biomarkers for violence? If they later do something wrong, are you legally liable for allowing them to be born if you've done prenatal testing and found the markers? What about doctors who notice them midway through the person's life, should they be legally required to report such people to the police for observation?
I'm getting flavors of both Minority Report and Brave New World from this: You're left in a place where one of the most ethical options is to pre-judge the people, push medication and counseling on someone who's never done anything just to be safe, or encourage them into a societal role where their violent tendencies won't be as risky. Perhaps you put the violent kids in their own special (high security) elementary school, where they're guided towards a profession in the military, police, sports, or other violent profession?
Very scary, despite how potentially useful such a discovery might be.
Someone must have caught Gattaca on Encore a few weeks ago. Sounds like a great idea, let's find the biomarker (a.k.a. genes) which identify violent behavior. Then what? Lobotomies? Indefinite internment? Put them on an island where they fight to the death on pay-per-view? Deny them the full rights accorded to them as citizens of the United States?
I seem to remember an era when scientists claimed that African-Americans were inferior to people of Caucasian descent. That proved to be ridiculous, racist, and fraudulent science. This concept is so flawed I can barely scratch the surface. Biomarkers do not determine who a person is or what they will become. Look at the Twins Studies. It is neither nature nor nurture, it is both.
sudo make me a sandwich
I don't know about that, while I can't argue about most places dropping the bar, my step-mother is a special needs teacher. Many of the students she deals with I've gotten to know personally and have no doubts in my mind they have the same intelligence level as a lot of other people their age. I find a lot of the time their issues revolve around their lack of communication skills, similar to how someone who is super smart is perceived as dumb because they can't talk to others or have trouble writing things down.
To top it off, I have a pretty sizable inner potential for violence. The road I took in order to control my impulses was long, windy and hard. I can say I've been "cured" mostly, although I still have occasional (short) outbursts.
I'm thinking that a "gene" detective would still categorize me in a way which is less than flattering, so-to-speak.
Now, those scientists who are trying to find biomarkers for violence are driven not by scientific curiosity, but vengeance. They are trying to "find all motherfuckers who resemble the motherfucker who killed our child". I'm not blaming them (it's a human impulse after all), but I don't think they deserve support either.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
It would be interesting though if they saw such gene or genes in a majority of the type-a personalities typically found in politics or corporate boardrooms.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
What if these same markers are co-incident with those for creativity or genius? What if they are the same as those for compassion or charity, but part of a more holistic interaction, which results in the perceived different expression?
"Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
What if our entire set of personal traits cannot be reduced to deterministic, binary markers?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
There already is a known genetic marker for violence. In the US, bearers of this genetic marker commit 70% of all property crimes, 90% of all murders, are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned, and comprise 93% of all prison inmates.
This marker is known as "Y chromosome".
Think of that.